| 1. |
- Maron, David J., et al.
(författare)
-
Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease
- 2020
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 382:15, s. 1395-1407
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain.Methods: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction.Results: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32).Conclusions: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, .) Patients with stable coronary disease were randomly assigned to an initial invasive strategy with angiography and revascularization if appropriate or to medical therapy alone. At 3.2 years, there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the estimated rate of ischemic events. The findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction.
|
|
| 2. |
- Reynolds, Harmony R., et al.
(författare)
-
Sex Differences in Revascularization, Treatment Goals, and Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease : Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 2047-9980. ; 13:5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundWomen with chronic coronary disease are generally older than men and have more comorbidities but less atherosclerosis. We explored sex differences in revascularization, guideline‐directed medical therapy, and outcomes among patients with chronic coronary disease with ischemia on stress testing, with and without invasive management.Methods and ResultsThe ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial randomized patients with moderate or severe ischemia to invasive management with angiography, revascularization, and guideline‐directed medical therapy, or initial conservative management with guideline‐directed medical therapy alone. We evaluated the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) and other end points, by sex, in 1168 (22.6%) women and 4011 (77.4%) men. Invasive group catheterization rates were similar, with less revascularization among women (73.4% of invasive‐assigned women revascularized versus 81.2% of invasive‐assigned men; P<0.001). Women had less coronary artery disease: multivessel in 60.0% of invasive‐assigned women and 74.8% of invasive‐assigned men, and no ≥50% stenosis in 12.3% versus 4.5% (P<0.001). In the conservative group, 4‐year catheterization rates were 26.3% of women versus 25.6% of men (P=0.72). Guideline‐directed medical therapy use was lower among women with fewer risk factor goals attained. There were no sex differences in the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for women versus men, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77–1.13]; P=0.47) or the major secondary outcome of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction (adjusted HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76–1.14]; P=0.49), with no significant sex‐by‐treatment‐group interactions.ConclusionsWomen had less extensive coronary artery disease and, therefore, lower revascularization rates in the invasive group. Despite lower risk factor goal attainment, women with chronic coronary disease experienced similar risk‐adjusted outcomes to men in the ISCHEMIA trial.
|
|
| 3. |
- Newman, Jonathan D., et al.
(författare)
-
Biomarkers and cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary disease in the ISCHEMIA Trials
- 2023
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 266, s. 61-73
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ImportanceBiomarkers may improve prediction of cardiovascular events for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), but their importance in addition to clinical tests of inducible ischemia and CAD severity is unknown.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prognostic value of multiple biomarkers in stable outpatients with obstructive CAD and moderate or severe inducible ischemia.Design and settingThe ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA CKD trials randomized 5,956 participants with CAD to invasive or conservative management from July 2012 to January 2018; 1,064 participated in the biorepository.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular death or MI. Improvements in prediction were assessed by cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for an interquartile increase in each biomarker, controlling for other biomarkers, in a base clinical model of risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and ischemia severity. Secondary analyses were performed among patients in whom core-lab confirmed severity of CAD was ascertained by computed cardiac tomographic angiography (CCTA).ExposuresBaseline levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), lipoprotein a (Lp[a]), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Cystatin C, soluble CD 40 ligand (sCD40L), myeloperoxidase (MPO), and matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP3).ResultsAmong 757 biorepository participants, median (IQR) follow-up was 3 (2-5) years, age was 67 (61-72) years, and 144 (19%) were female; 508 had severity of CAD by CCTA available. In an adjusted multimarker model with hsTnT, GDF-15, NT-proBNP and sCD40L, the adjusted HR for the primary outcome per interquartile increase in each biomarker was 1.58 (95% CI 1.22, 2.205), 1.60 (95% CI 1.16, 2.20), 1.61 (95% 1.22, 2.14), and 1.46 (95% 1.12, 1.90), respectively. The adjusted multimarker model also improved prediction compared with the clinical model, increasing the AUC from 0.710 to 0.792 (P < .01) and 0.714 to 0.783 (P < .01) for the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Similar findings were observed after adjusting for core-lab confirmed atherosclerosis severity.Conclusions and relevanceAmong ISCHEMIA biorepository participants, biomarkers of myocyte injury/distension, inflammation, and platelet activity improved cardiovascular event prediction in addition to risk factors, LVEF, and assessments of ischemia and atherosclerosis severity. These biomarkers may improve risk stratification for patients with stable CAD.
|
|
| 4. |
- Spertus, John A, et al.
(författare)
-
Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 382:15, s. 1408-1419
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients.METHODS: We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency.RESULTS: At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina).CONCLUSIONS: In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).
|
|
